[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100115142007.GA1628@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:50:07 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Wielaard <mjw@...hat.com>,
utrace-devel <utrace-devel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 4/7] Uprobes Implementation
>
> > > Furthermore it requires stopping and resuming tasks and nonsense like
> > > that, that's unwanted in many cases, just run stuff from the trap site
> > > and you're done.
> >
> > I don't know what you mean exactly. A trap already stopped task.
> > utrace merely allows various clients to inspect/manipulate the state
> > of the task at that moment. It does not add any context switches or
> > spurious stop/resumue operations.
>
> Srikar seemed to suggest it needed stop/resume.
>
If process traps, We dont need to stop/resume other threads.
uprobes needs threads to quiesce when inserting/deleting the breakpoint.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists